民粹主義態度量表：聚合效度與預測效度的檢測

Abstract

在後冷戰時代的今日，民粹主義成為民主的新興威脅。不同於戰爭或滲透，民粹主義為民主的「內在威脅」。由於民粹主義式的民主雖具民主外觀，實質上卻影響民主品質、消減理性討論公共議題的空間，因此有必要甄別何為「真民主」、何為「民粹主義民主」。研究一為問卷研究，綜整過往量表，期發展具信效度的量表工具。本研究藉由文獻回顧，爬梳先前研究中用以定義民粹主義的概念。進而，查找前人發展出的民粹主義量表，藉量化方法萃取出精華的民粹主義題項，形成新民粹主義量表。依據研究一樣本（N = 228）發現，反建制、人民意志、同質人民三大子構念，最能代表民粹主義態度的核心構念。此外，研究一亦複製了前人研究，通過了預測效度之檢驗，確認民粹主義態度與民主治理品質、政治信任感呈顯著負相關，而與政治無力感呈顯著正相關。然而，在民粹主義態度與多元主義信念及菁英主義信念上，本量表亦與前人研究存在著不一致，因此進行研究二進一步精化量表。研究二透過問卷法（N = 204），重複驗證研究一的結果，即「人民意志」與「反建制」與「同質人民」間有穩定正相關，但「反建制」與「同質人民」間無穩定關聯，顯示「人民意志」為橋接「反建制」與「同質人民」兩大子構念的重要構念。另外，研究二檢測民粹主義量表之預測效度，發現具民粹主義態度者，愈會表現出投票給民粹主義候選人、連署支持恢復死刑等「體制內民粹主義行為」。研究結果顯示，民粹主義對民主品質具有深遠影響。民粹主義者傾向支持民粹候選人和極端抗爭行為，這種特性削弱了民主治理的穩定性和理性討論的空間。而民粹主義者強調「人民意見」最大、忽視多元聲音，進一步加深社會分裂。這種內在威脅侵蝕了民主的包容性和妥協性。因此，理解並區分真民主與民粹主義民主，對維護民主制度的穩定和健康發展至關重要。

In the post-Cold War era, populism has emerged as a new threat to democracy. Unlike war or infiltration, populism is an “internal threat” to democracy. Although populist democracy appears democratic, it substantially affects the quality of democracy and reduces the space for rational discussion of public issues. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between “true democracy” and “populist democracy.”

Study 1 is a survey study with the synthesis of items from previous scales. Through the literature review, crucial elements defining populism were identified, and items from previous scales were collected and administered. With a sample (N = 228), exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed three sub-concepts of populism (anti-establishment, the will of the people, and homogeneity of the people). In addition, Study 1 replicated previous research with the evidence of the convergent validity of the new populism scale, confirming that populist attitudes are negatively correlated with the quality of democratic governance and political trust, and positively correlated with political powerlessness. However, the findings also showed some inconsistent evidence from the findings of the previous research on the associations between populism, pluralistic beliefs, and elitist beliefs. Thus, Study 2 was conducted to further develop the new populism scale.

Surveys were administered with a sample of 204 in Study 2. Replicating the findings of Study 1, the correlations between the “will of the people” and “anti-establishment” and “homogeneity of the people” were significant, but the correlation between “anti-establishment” and “homogeneity of the people” was not, suggesting that the “will of the people” is an important element to bridge “anti-establishment” and “homogeneity of the people.” Additionally, Study 2 examined the predictive validity of the populism scale and found that individuals with populist attitudes were more likely to exhibit “institutional populist behaviors,” such as voting for populist candidates and signing petitions to support the reinstatement of the death penalty.

To sum up, the results of this thesis indicate that populism has a profound impact on the quality of democracy. Populists tend to support populist candidates and extreme protest actions, which undermines the stability of democratic governance and the space for rational debate of public issue. Emphasizing the supremacy of the “will of the people” while ignoring diverse voices further deepens social divisions. This internal threat erodes the inclusiveness and compromise essential to democracy. Therefore, understanding and distinguishing “true democracy” from “populist democracy” is crucial for maintaining the stability and healthy development of democratic systems.